Coral Calcium and Health
Coral Calcium and Health
In Search of Health and Youth
I share everyone’s quest for health and longevity. Whilst humankind has been denied a simple “fountain of youth,” modern science is pointing us towards the possibility of using nutrition to help secure a long and healthy life. In this new millennium, the limitations of allopathic (conventional) medicine have become increasingly apparent.
Coral Calcium and Health
The proverbial quest for the “fountain of youth” did not begin with the Spanish explorer, Ponce de Leon, but it is more than a coincidence that coral calcium and health was introduced as a important treatment agent in the oldest pharmacy in Europe that is located in Spain. This pharmacy is now a museum in Penaranda de Duero in Northern Spain and it was established in 1685. The introduction of ground coral as one of the first pharmaceuticals in Spain may have occurred from earlier occupation of the Iberian Peninsula by the Moors (Arabs). In this Medieval Pharmacy ground, stony coral is prominently displayed as a treatment. The dispensing container of coral bears several inscriptions that describe its beneficial effects on the heart and brain.
The use of coral calcium and health in early forms of allopathic (conventional) medicine was based on little more than empiric (trial and error) use with evidence of benefit. When the Spanish found the inhabitants of Okinawa to be unusually healthy and long living, they recognized that the ingestion of coral sand, later to be renamed coral calcium, was the prime ingredient. In contemporary medicine, we still operate by trial and error, but we are convinced that we can better measure outcomes using modern scientific principles of research. Whilst I do not doubt the ability of modern science to identify the safety and effectiveness of modern medicines, the precedence of the successful use of coral calcium and health speaks for itself.
Coral Calcium and Health
It is foolish to propose that any single agent will promote health and longevity in a consistent and simple manner. After all, aging and disease development are highly complex biological events with a multitude of contributory factors. However, it should be noted that coral cannot be considered a “single agent,” as it is composed of thousands of different skeletal organisms that leached nutrients out of the ocean for millions of years, thereby containing all of the mineral nutrients contained in the human body. Setting these technical thoughts aside, humankind has been on a perpetual search for one potion, lotion or elixir that will guarantee eternal youth. Whilst this miracle eludes discovery, some of the secrets of health and longevity may be much more simple than hitherto supposed.
The Best Coral Calcium and Health Bobs Best Coral Calcium 2000
Chemist, Author, Lecturer
Bob Barefoot Speaking on Coral Calcium and Health
Why is vitamin D important for children? A few of the many reasons…
1) NHANES 2001-2004 found over 70% of US children and adolescents were vitamin D deficient or insufficient (serum levels < 29 ng/mL). This was six years ago – incidence has been steadily increasing.
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19661054
2) Childhood obesity affects 17% (12.5 million) of America’s children, placing them at risk of significant adverse health outcomes. Obese children with atherosclerosis-promoting risk factors are showing signs of advanced “vascular age.” Low vitamin D levels are associated with obesity.
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20381783
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19920030
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18230896
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191047
3) Inadequate vitamin D nutrition during perinatal development may threaten a child’s long-term health outcome well into adult years, as a risk-modifying factor for many chronic diseases including osteomalacia, rickets, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, heart disease, type 1 diabetes, and cancer.
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20974417
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20646224
Get your supply! Bob’s Best Vitamin D is the right choice for you!
Too much vitamin-D “can cause” damage to the kidneys?
Once again propaganda is emanating from the drug industry. The article in question claims that according to Wikipedia “too much vitamin-D “can cause” damage to the kidneys”. You will note that the article does not say that too much vitamin-D “does cause” but rather it says “can cause”.
The reason that it does not say that vitamin-D does cause kidney disease is that massive scientific studies, such as the Frock report on vitamin-D (done by hundreds of scientists and hundreds of doctors) have proven that even when taken in the millions of iu’s, vitamin-D3 does not cause damage to the body. Once again the article is misleading as it does not say that vitamin-D does cause damage but rather it tries to suggest that it does.
Most medical researchers today suggest that everyone take at least 15,000 iu of vitamin-D3 daily.
Bob Barefoot
Come get your supply of Bob’s Best Vitamin D today!
Today, the Food and Nutrition Board has Failed Millions
The following was released today by the Vitamin D Council:
Vitamin D – SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif., Dec. 1, 2010
PRNewswire-USNewswire
After 13 years of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), yesterday recommended that a three – pound premature infant can take virtually the same amount of vitamin D as a 300 pound pregnant woman. While that 400 IU/day dose is close to adequate for infants, 600 IU/day in pregnant women will do nothing to help the three childhood epidemics most closely associated with gestational and early childhood vitamin D deficiencies: asthma, auto-immune disorders, and, as recently reported in the largest pediatric journal in the world, autism (1). Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina has shown pregnant and lactating women need at least 5,000 IU/day, not 600.
The FNB also reported that vitamin D toxicity might occur at an intake of 10,000 IU/day (250 micrograms), although they could produce no reproducible evidence that 10,000 IU/day has ever caused toxicity in humans and only one poorly conducted study indicating 20,000 IU/day may cause mild elevations in serum calcium but not clinical toxicity.
Viewed with different measure, this FNB report recommends that an infant should take 10 micrograms/day (400 IU) and the pregnant women 15 micrograms/day (600 IU). As a single 30 minutes dose of summer sunshine gives adults more than 10,000 IU (250 micrograms), the FNB is apparently also warning that natural vitamin D input – as occurred from the sun before the widespread use of sunscreen – is dangerous. That is, the FNB is implying that God does not know what she is doing.
Disturbingly, this FNB committee focused on bone health, just like they did 14 years ago. They ignored the thousands of studies from the last ten years that showed higher doses of vitamin D helps: heart health, brain health, breast health, prostate health, pancreatic health, muscle health, nerve health, eye health, immune health, colon health, liver health, mood health, skin health, and especially fetal health. Tens of millions of pregnant women and their breast-feeding infants are severely vitamin D deficient, resulting in a great increase in the medieval disease, rickets. The FNB report seems to reason that if so many pregnant women have low vitamin D blood levels then it must be OK because such low levels are so common. However, such circular logic simply represents the cave man existence of most modern day pregnant women.
Hence, if you want to optimize your vitamin D levels – not just optimize the bone effect – supplementing is crucial. But it is almost impossible to significantly raise your vitamin D levels when supplementing at only 600 IU/day (15 micrograms). Pregnant women taking 400 IU/day have the same blood levels as pregnant women not taking vitamin D; that is, 400 IU is a meaninglessly small dose for pregnant women. Even taking 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D will only increase the vitamin D levels of most pregnant women by about 10 points, depending mainly on their weight. Professor Bruce Hollis has shown that 2,000 IU/day does not raise vitamin D to healthy or natural levels in either pregnant or lactating women. Therefore supplementing with higher amounts — like 5000 IU/day — is crucial for those women who want their fetus to enjoy optimal vitamin D levels, and the future health benefits that go along with it.
For example, taking only two of the hundreds of recently published studies, Professor Urashima and colleagues in Japan gave 1,200 IU/day of vitamin D3 for six months to Japanese 10 year-olds in a randomized controlled trial. They found vitamin D dramatically reduced the incidence of influenza A as well as the episodes of asthma attacks in the treated kids while the placebo group was not so fortunate. If Dr. Urashima had followed the newest FNB recommendations, it is unlikely that 400 IU/day treatment arm would have done much of anything and some of the treated young teenagers may have come to serious harm without the vitamin D. Likewise, a randomized controlled prevention trial of adults by Professor Joan Lappe and colleagues at Creighton University, which showed dramatic improvements in the health of internal organs, used more than twice the FNB’s new adult recommendations.
Finally, the FNB committee consulted with 14 vitamin D experts and – after reading these 14 different reports – the FNB decided to suppress their reports. Many of these 14 consultants are either famous vitamin D researchers, like Professor Robert Heaney at Creighton, or in the case of Professor Walter Willett at Harvard, the single best-known nutritionist in the world. So, the FNB will not tell us what Professors Heaney and Willett thought of their new report? Why not? Yesterday, the Vitamin D Council directed our attorney to file a federal Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the IOM’s FNB for the release of these 14 reports.
I, my family, most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter, have been taking 5,000 IU/day for up to eight years. Not only have they reported no significant side-effects, indeed, they have reported greatly improved health in multiple organ systems. My advice: especially for pregnant women, continue taking 5,000 IU/day until your (OH)D] is between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml (the vitamin D blood levels obtained by humans who live and work in the sun and the mid-point of the current reference ranges at all American laboratories). Gestational vitamin D deficiency is not only associated with rickets, but a significantly increased risk of neonatal pneumonia (2), a doubled risk for preeclampsia (3), a tripled risk for gestational diabetes (4), and a quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section (5).
Yesterday, the FNB failed millions of pregnant women whose as yet unborn babies will pay the price. Let us hope the FNB will comply with the spirit of “transparency” by quickly responding to our freedom of Information requests.
John Cannell, MD
1241 Johnson Avenue, #134
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(1) Cannell JJ.. On the aetiology of autism. Acta Paediatr. 2010 Aug;99(8):1128-30. Epub 2010 May 19.
For More Information on Vitamin D
Vitamin D Lecture by Oliver Gillie
An Excerpt from –
The Annual Caroline Walker Lecture by Oliver Gillie; November 16, 2010
Dark forces
“… science should not be discussed just in technical monotone. Nutrition and
food policy is everybody’s business, and I believe, as did the founders of the
Royal Society, that the most vital scientific issues need dynamic expression and
vigorous debate in plain language. Everybody concerned with the sustenance of
the whole living world now and in the future, is in a battle against dark forces.”
Geoffrey Cannon – The Fate of Nations – Caroline Walker Trust Lecture 2003
In this lecture I attempt to go beyond the scientific monotone referred to by
Geoffrey Cannon and, indeed, to tackle dark forces of a kind. To avoid the
technical monotone I have brought in celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow and
Jacqueline du Pré whose illnesses illustrate the consequences of vitamin D
deficiency. Critics may say I have wasted time on this when I should have been
delving further into significant differences and meta-analysis but I make no
apology. The data on vitamin D and disease is now very extensive, yet it remains
little known. So I have attempted to stimulate interest and arouse curiosity in the
hope that you will search for more evidence and apply your own critical
judgment.
Dark forces lie behind the pandemic of illness caused by insufficient vitamin D.
Not, perhaps, the forces Geoffrey Cannon had in mind, but nevertheless powerful
changes that affect the way we live, movements which individuals cannot easily
control. As cities grew, smoke from domestic fires and industry polluted the
atmosphere, blocking out the sun which is our major source of vitamin D.
Rickets, the tragic disease that distorts the growth of children, emerged in
epidemic form in 19th century Europe. It was the surface reflection of much more
sickness and of pitifully brief lives, recorded by Dickens in his literary records of
life in our city slums.
Air pollution is the first of the dark forces that block out the sun. In the UK the
Clean Air Acts of the 1950s did much to remove the most obvious smog and bring
sunshine into our cities. Only now are we beginning to understand the depths of
sickness and deprivation caused in the past by air pollution and insufficient
sunshine. Scientific evidence now links insufficient vitamin D with some of our
most common diseases: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and multiple
sclerosis are among them.
Other secular changes limit the amount of sun we get. Most important are the
desk jobs that keep us indoors all day and the TV programmes and computer
activities that keep us inside at the weekend. Instead of warming ourselves in the
sun outside our cottages as of old we stay indoors because our work keeps us
there and our houses are more comfortable and better heated than they have ever
been. Fashion is another secular force with dark effects: schoolboys no longer
wear short trousers and girls wear leggings in the summer. Overuse of suncreams
and everyday use of cosmetic foundation blocks the UV that makes vitamin D in
skin. And there is another force which I hesitate to call dark: people have been
wrongly told to avoid the sun when simple exposure to sunshine is beneficial if
burning is avoided.
These secular forces are dark not only because they block out the sun but
because their full effects on health have been unrecognized, hidden. Now, as a
result of many years of scientific investigation, we can comprehend their effect in
shading us from the sun which is our natural source of vitamin D. Understanding
mechanisms of disease has led to great hygienic reforms in the past. In the 19th
century modern sewers were built when the spread of cholera in infected water
became understood for the first time. In the 20th century major changes in our
habits have come from demonstration of the ill effects of smoking. In this century,
understanding the importance of sunshine and vitamin D may be expected to
bring further benefits.
We know sufficient now about vitamin D to forge new policies that will save many
lives. We need vigorous debate. A scientific monotone is not enough. We must
engage the public and policy makers if we are to contend effectively with the
forces of darkness.
Oliver Gillie,
Health Research Forum,
London, October 2010
Visit us today for your Bob’s Best Vitamin D!